Originally posted by Zippy

Originally posted by Senadina

I get the impression Vanguard is hard to solo. Possible, but hard. Only thing kept me from playing. And I have gotten mixed responses to that. But since the good old days when my RL friend said I could solo Asheron's Call, and I couldn't do a damn thing alone, if I hear rumors that it's a group focused game, I stay away until I have proof otherwise. I

No Vanguard is super easy to solo.  One can solo 1-50 without ever grouping or grinding, just doing solo quests, in 5-6 days played with little effort or thought.  Now there are a few classes like rogues that are difficult to solo but almost all VG classes are good soloers and level super fast.

I've played VG.  Soloing was not a rewarding experience.  The loot sucked, the XP gain was atrocious and I was constantly steered into grouping areas to complete my solo based kill tasks.  VG's solo content is mind numbing without fun loot to even partially mitigate it.  The vast majority of cool loot came from group quests, 4 dot named mobs and raiding.

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by heartless

 

You know, if most people would choose to avoid grouping, then maybe something is wrong with the whole concept of always requiring multiple people to accomplish something.

As for forced grouping and community, there are much better ways of "forcing" community interaction. Look up Ultima Online or EVE Online. Both of those games do not force grouping and they have some of the best communities out there. Now look at WoW, a game that "forces" grouping at max level. It has one of the foulest communities every witnessed in MMOs.

Forced grouping as a way to promote community is used by developers who lack the imagination or resources to implement better community building tools.

 

You are correct sir!!     

But both of those games at some point will require a group to do 100% of the content.  One player is not takind down a space station in EvE.

What is uniquely different about those games is that they had a real working "true" economic system driven by the players and the solo person has the ability to get equal levels of items and equipment as any other player.

The EQ , WoW, WaR , model is a dated and dying one in terms of loot and economy.

Yes, you had to group in UO, especially if you were pure melee if you wanted to take out wyrms or something equally deadly. But it was not required for character progression or overall content progression. Because UO was set up as a world, not a theme park, you could've just as easily skipped that content and done something else. Something just as viable.

The major difference is that in games like UO and EVE you set the goals. In games like WoW, the developers set the goals for you. Since the main goal in WoW is character progression, which turns into loot progression after max level, giving access to the best loot only to a select minority, is pretty much the same as allowing raiders to reach level 80 and lock every one else at 70. Because let's face it, in WoW loot is a huge factor.

Originally posted by Beartosser

Originally posted by Vrazule

....as if groupers and raiders aren't exhibiting all kinds of selfishness.  Soloers want equal treatment, groupers want preferential.  Now who exactly is being selfish?

Exactly, but once people become used to being on the receiving end of that level of preferential treatment, it's very difficult to get them to give it up.
 

It's not about equal treatment it's about game design.

MMORPGs are traditionaly designed with a focus on group content at SOME point in the game, it doesn't HAVE to be fair for the solo player.

You give up all notions of real-world-fairness and equal treatment when you read a EULA and ToS, agree to play the game and pay for it, you are entering their world with their rules, it doesn't have to be anything they don't want it to be.

They can crush your freedom of speech, your freedom of assembly, whatever they want to.

It's THEIR world, you just play in it.

If it's a good game, you can make it your world, but it's a world you share so you have to create rules that are ambiguous enough to cater to the masses.

It's not "preferential treatment" either way, it's designing a game for success and to make it "fun" for their target audience.

If you are not in the target audience.. well... as I've said before you are SOL. No one is making you play.

Sure, you are only asking for a game that is designed to focus on the target audience you consider yourself a part of, that is totally natural and expected, but understand that you are a niche market.

If you made a game where solo acquired gear = group/raid stuff the group/raid people would find another game because they don't think that is fair.

If you don't think it is fair that they get better loot, find a game where that is not the case.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Beartosser

Originally posted by Vrazule

....as if groupers and raiders aren't exhibiting all kinds of selfishness.  Soloers want equal treatment, groupers want preferential.  Now who exactly is being selfish?

Exactly, but once people become used to being on the receiving end of that level of preferential treatment, it's very difficult to get them to give it up.
 

 

Both want a game they like to play.

Groupers want a group game, soloers want a solo game.

I don't think it's beyond their capability to create a game that satisfies both, but if it is that difficult, maybe they should go the route they went with PVE and PVP in WoW......seperate servers.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by heartless

 

You know, if most people would choose to avoid grouping, then maybe something is wrong with the whole concept of always requiring multiple people to accomplish something.

As for forced grouping and community, there are much better ways of "forcing" community interaction. Look up Ultima Online or EVE Online. Both of those games do not force grouping and they have some of the best communities out there. Now look at WoW, a game that "forces" grouping at max level. It has one of the foulest communities every witnessed in MMOs.

Forced grouping as a way to promote community is used by developers who lack the imagination or resources to implement better community building tools.

 

You are correct sir!!     

But both of those games at some point will require a group to do 100% of the content.  One player is not takind down a space station in EvE.

What is uniquely different about those games is that they had a real working "true" economic system driven by the players and the solo person has the ability to get equal levels of items and equipment as any other player.

The EQ , WoW, WaR , model is a dated and dying one in terms of loot and economy.

Yes, you had to group in UO, especially if you were pure melee if you wanted to take out wyrms or something equally deadly. But it was not required for character progression or overall content progression. Because UO was set up as a world, not a theme park, you could've just as easily skipped that content and done something else. Something just as viable.

The major difference is that in games like UO and EVE you set the goals. In games like WoW, the developers set the goals for you. Since the main goal in WoW is character progression, which turns into loot progression after max level, giving access to the best loot only to a select minority, is pretty much the same as allowing raiders to reach level 80 and lock every one else at 70. Because let's face it, in WoW loot is a huge factor.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, except that the major argument from soloer's is they are not able to see ALL the content. So even if the best designed models imo ( UO and EvE) soloer's still would not be able to do all the content and would still complain.

The only way to have these solo extremists happy is to remove any and all group based encounters,dungeon, content.

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Maybe in the past like games with everquest 1 when it was very difficult to solo. but today when everything is watered down to the max I cant even think of one game where you cant solo. Can any one else?

Hm i think you cannot "solo" Saga of Ryzom.

1. The max. XP is 3k / mob or 6k if you have catalysators of the required level (50/100/150/200/250).

    For example you need level 250 catalysators to enhance a skill over 200 :)

     Catalysators can only be harvested by guilds who own an outpost of the respective level :)

2. Every mob needed on approaching max lvl will kill you definitely if you are alone

3. the good levelling places are very dangerous to get to and/or maintain safe

4. Max. Level / Skill is 250

But on the other hand there is no need to "solo" an MMORPG

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Beartosser

"For soloer's to think that they should be able to solo epic mobs and group encounters should be removed from the game completely, I think that's being a bit selfish."

I don't want group/raid content removed or altered at all. What I'm asking for is completely seperate solo content at end game.

I don't think that's being unreasonable.

 

Why would that be "end game"?

That would just be more "game".

 

Please show me where exactly does it specify that "end game" has to be group and raid content?

BTW, "end game" is just more "game" no matter what it is.

 

Generally "end game" is considered a change in the game.

It is something you cannot do until you finish with character progression, which is what makes the game an RPG.

It doesn't ahve to be raiding.

It could be PvP, building the great pyramids, or something else, but it's a change in the game.

If you're still leveling, still doing the same thing, it's not "end game".

If you have finished with character progression, why are you killing these mobs still? If you're not finished, it's not "the end".

 

Correction. "End game" is considered by you to be a change in the game. "End game" is nothing more that content which allows the player to continue playing his or her max level character as opposed to starting a brand new one or moving to another game entirely.

It could be raids, it could be solo, it could be crafting. There are no set rules, except for the ones the developers themselves choose to implement, which state exactly what "end game" should be.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Beartosser

Originally posted by Vrazule

....as if groupers and raiders aren't exhibiting all kinds of selfishness.  Soloers want equal treatment, groupers want preferential.  Now who exactly is being selfish?

Exactly, but once people become used to being on the receiving end of that level of preferential treatment, it's very difficult to get them to give it up.
 

 

Both want a game they like to play.

Groupers want a group game, soloers want a solo game.

....and yet, after all these years, we STILL don't have an MMO that doesn't treat soloers like second class gamers.  The genre is over a decade old, there is no excuse and we're getting tired of waiting.  I remember when I started playing EQ in 1999.  Even then, people bitched constantly about the lack of solo content and solo rewards.  Druids were one of the most popular classes specifically for it's ability to solo more content than any other class except the necromancer.  How long should it take a dense headed, hardcore oriented developer to think outside of the forced group / raiding box?

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by heartless

 

You know, if most people would choose to avoid grouping, then maybe something is wrong with the whole concept of always requiring multiple people to accomplish something.

As for forced grouping and community, there are much better ways of "forcing" community interaction. Look up Ultima Online or EVE Online. Both of those games do not force grouping and they have some of the best communities out there. Now look at WoW, a game that "forces" grouping at max level. It has one of the foulest communities every witnessed in MMOs.

Forced grouping as a way to promote community is used by developers who lack the imagination or resources to implement better community building tools.

 

You are correct sir!!     

But both of those games at some point will require a group to do 100% of the content.  One player is not takind down a space station in EvE.

What is uniquely different about those games is that they had a real working "true" economic system driven by the players and the solo person has the ability to get equal levels of items and equipment as any other player.

The EQ , WoW, WaR , model is a dated and dying one in terms of loot and economy.

Yes, you had to group in UO, especially if you were pure melee if you wanted to take out wyrms or something equally deadly. But it was not required for character progression or overall content progression. Because UO was set up as a world, not a theme park, you could've just as easily skipped that content and done something else. Something just as viable.

The major difference is that in games like UO and EVE you set the goals. In games like WoW, the developers set the goals for you. Since the main goal in WoW is character progression, which turns into loot progression after max level, giving access to the best loot only to a select minority, is pretty much the same as allowing raiders to reach level 80 and lock every one else at 70. Because let's face it, in WoW loot is a huge factor.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly, except that the major argument from soloer's is they are not able to see ALL the content. So even if the best designed models imo ( UO and EvE) soloer's still would not be able to do all the content and would still complain.

The only way to have these solo extremists happy is to remove any and all group based encounters,dungeon, content.

There are extremists on both sides. Some want to solo all content and some want all content to be group only. Since catering to only one extreme would alienate the other, there has to be a happy medium.

To do that the developers have to find a way to make both play styles equally fun and viable.

Ninja edit: Basically, no one group should get preference when it comes to other portions of the game because of their play style. For example gear giving raiders "ez mode" in PvP.

"If you are not in the target audience.. well... as I've said before you are SOL. No one is making you play."
 

As I mentioned in another post, I'm not currently playing an MMO, and for that very reason. There are many out there like me who are waiting for a game to meet our needs, and by posting here I'm reminding the devs that if they build it, we will come, and they will make money.

Originally posted by heartless

There are extremists on both sides. Some want to solo all content and some want all content to be group only. Since catering to only one extreme would alienate the other, there has to be a happy medium.

To do that the developers have to find a way to make both play styles equally fun and viable.

I only hope that developers do not continue to water down their products by trying to cater to all sides. Although I will not play Darkfall, I do like that a company has tried to cater to a niche audience.  It's too bad companies aren't more satisfied with making a good game with a nice playerbase and turning profit year in and year out instead of the business ego competition that goes one. We've got 11 Million Subscribers!!!  We're the #2 mmo on the market!

It just seems if companies could provide a good product in a niche market they could enjoy the rewards of a loyal playerbase.

Originally posted by Beartosser

"If you are not in the target audience.. well... as I've said before you are SOL. No one is making you play."
 

As I mentioned in another post, I'm not currently playing an MMO, and for that very reason. There are many out there like me who are waiting for a game to meet our needs, and by posting here I'm reminding the devs that if they build it, we will come, and they will make money.

But I really don't think they will make money cause all of you that come are just not that many in comparison. Sorry :(

I know I'd never play a MMO that was entirely solo based and I could do everything solo.

To me, what's the fun in that if I never get to group up to do more difficult content?

Originally posted by johnspartan

Originally posted by Beartosser

Originally posted by Vrazule

....as if groupers and raiders aren't exhibiting all kinds of selfishness.  Soloers want equal treatment, groupers want preferential.  Now who exactly is being selfish?

Exactly, but once people become used to being on the receiving end of that level of preferential treatment, it's very difficult to get them to give it up.
 

 

It's not about equal treatment it's about game design.

MMORPGs are traditionaly designed with a focus on group content at SOME point in the game, it doesn't HAVE to be fair for the solo player.

You give up all notions of real-world-fairness and equal treatment when you read a EULA and ToS, agree to play the game and pay for it, you are entering their world with their rules, it doesn't have to be anything they don't want it to be.

They can crush your freedom of speech, your freedom of assembly, whatever they want to.

It's THEIR world, you just play in it.

If it's a good game, you can make it your world, but it's a world you share so you have to create rules that are ambiguous enough to cater to the masses.

It's not "preferential treatment" either way, it's designing a game for success and to make it "fun" for their target audience.

If you are not in the target audience.. well... as I've said before you are SOL. No one is making you play.

Sure, you are only asking for a game that is designed to focus on the target audience you consider yourself a part of, that is totally natural and expected, but understand that you are a niche market.

If you made a game where solo acquired gear = group/raid stuff the group/raid people would find another game because they don't think that is fair.

If you don't think it is fair that they get better loot, find a game where that is not the case.

You keep trying to shift this into a lets change current games, when this is about someone finally coming out with a new kind of MMO.  We are using current games as examples of the status quo that needs to change.  Not really sure how this helps your arguement in any case, but whatever.  It is preferential treatment, just because the developers are responsible doesn't somehow negate that fact.  I'm not any more worried about hurting a grouper's feelings than they are mine.  So bring on a solo oriented MMO and screw the rest.  That's the game that will get and keep my subscription.

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by heartless

There are extremists on both sides. Some want to solo all content and some want all content to be group only. Since catering to only one extreme would alienate the other, there has to be a happy medium.

To do that the developers have to find a way to make both play styles equally fun and viable.

 

I only hope that developers do not continue to water down their products by trying to cater to all sides. Although I will not play Darkfall, I do like that a company has tried to cater to a niche audience.  It's too bad companies aren't more satisfied with making a good game with a nice playerbase and turning profit year in and year out instead of the business ego competition that goes one. We've got 11 Million Subscribers!!!  We're the #2 mmo on the market!

It just seems if companies could provide a good product in a niche market they could enjoy the rewards of a loyal playerbase.

Well, the watering down is a problem for sure. A problem which, in my opinion, does not stem from the fact that it's being catered to everyone but simply because that's the easy way out for developers.

I mean, what's the easiest way to make group content? Give the mobs tons of HPs and make them hit much harder. Solo content? Do the opposite! Instead of making the content challenging by creating better AI, adding puzzle elements or implementing the use of the environment into game play, the developers choose the easy way out.

It's just as possible to create challenging, interesting and equally rewarding content for both group and solo players.

I guess some of this could be attributed to outdated engines of current MMOs. However, I think that the biggest problem is that developers and executives do not want to try something new. They see WoW's success and they want a chunk of those 11 million subscribers. So they assume that by emulating WoW as closely as possible they will get people to switch. Which hasn't worked so far.

Originally posted by heartless

Well, the watering down is a problem for sure. A problem which, in my opinion, does not stem from the fact that it's being catered to everyone but simply because that's the easy way out for developers.

I mean, what's the easiest way to make group content? Give the mobs tons of HPs and make them hit much harder. Solo content? Do the opposite! Instead of making the content challenging by creating better AI, adding puzzle elements or implementing the use of the environment into game play, the developers choose the easy way out.It's just as possible to create challenging, interesting and equally rewarding content for both group and solo players.

I guess some of this could be attributed to outdated engines of current MMOs. However, I think that the biggest problem is that developers and executives do not want to try something new. They see WoW's success and they want a chunk of those 11 million subscribers. So they assume that by emulating WoW as closely as possible they will get people to switch. Which hasn't worked so far.

Yes, it is sad that the people who seem to have the greatest ideas do not have the technical or business knowledge, finances, or sales pitch to incorporate them. This is why I hate that WOW was such a staggering success.  They did a great thing and introduced a ton of people to MMORPG's that had not played them before, but because of their success companies keep assuming that is what all gamers want so they try to recreate it, rather than look at it as " Okay, Blizzard got us a huge playerbase out there, they've put our industry into the mainstream, what is something new we can do that will attract those players who are tired of wow"

Originally posted by Vrazule

You keep trying to shift this into a lets change current games, when this is about someone finally coming out with a new kind of MMO.  We are using current games as examples of the status quo that needs to change.  Not really sure how this helps your arguement in any case, but whatever.  It is preferential treatment, just because the developers are responsible doesn't somehow negate that fact.  I'm not any more worried about hurting a grouper's feelings than they are mine.  So bring on a solo oriented MMO and screw the rest.  That's the game that will get and keep my subscription.

No I am talking about a new game too.

To make a highly polished AAA MMO with lots of content that would change the status quo and be a "good" game that was solo oriented you'd STILL need a lot of money and time, two things that will only ever be given to you, a development studio, by a publisher/board if you can convince them that the game is going to sell like hotcakes and they'll make a return on their investment.

I simply ask, is the market for a game where everything could be solo'd equally in terms of power and reward as the group/raid stuff, would it be that successful enough to warrant the risk of investment?

And I honestly think the answer is no.

But we'll see, as far as we know Star Wars: The Old Republic is trying things that way, but it's yet to be seen what the "end-game" is going to be but I would bet you it'll be group oriented raids and PvP.

 

Originally posted by heartless

Well, the watering down is a problem for sure. A problem which, in my opinion, does not stem from the fact that it's being catered to everyone but simply because that's the easy way out for developers.

I mean, what's the easiest way to make group content? Give the mobs tons of HPs and make them hit much harder. Solo content? Do the opposite! Instead of making the content challenging by creating better AI, adding puzzle elements or implementing the use of the environment into game play, the developers choose the easy way out.

It's just as possible to create challenging, interesting and equally rewarding content for both group and solo players.

I guess some of this could be attributed to outdated engines of current MMOs. However, I think that the biggest problem is that developers and executives do not want to try something new. They see WoW's success and they want a chunk of those 11 million subscribers. So they assume that by emulating WoW as closely as possible they will get people to switch. Which hasn't worked so far.

When you are trying to create a game that never has an ending, i.e. a MMO, you have to create a LOT of content. For instance Bioware saying that SW:ToR will have more content then all previous Bioware RPG's combined.

Bioware can do that, most development studios can't. They don't have the manpower or the money or the resources/facilities to house them etc. etc.

So they have to create content that they can create semi-quickly, because if not the player will burn through all of their cool awsome better AI stuff and then.... have what to do? 

You don't keep subs that way.

It's not about WoW and emulating them, WoW was smart to see what other games did and make them better and roll it into a friendly package.

Problem is, people try see what WoW did and make it better and roll it into a friendly yet different package, but so far NO ONE has gotten anywhere near the level of polish and quality that WoW has. So people go back to WoW.

You can always try something different, but there is a reason a wheel is round and not square. Sure, a square wheel is different but it just doesn't work as well.

Originally posted by johnspartan

Originally posted by heartless

Well, the watering down is a problem for sure. A problem which, in my opinion, does not stem from the fact that it's being catered to everyone but simply because that's the easy way out for developers.

I mean, what's the easiest way to make group content? Give the mobs tons of HPs and make them hit much harder. Solo content? Do the opposite! Instead of making the content challenging by creating better AI, adding puzzle elements or implementing the use of the environment into game play, the developers choose the easy way out.

It's just as possible to create challenging, interesting and equally rewarding content for both group and solo players.

I guess some of this could be attributed to outdated engines of current MMOs. However, I think that the biggest problem is that developers and executives do not want to try something new. They see WoW's success and they want a chunk of those 11 million subscribers. So they assume that by emulating WoW as closely as possible they will get people to switch. Which hasn't worked so far.

 

When you are trying to create a game that never has an ending, i.e. a MMO, you have to create a LOT of content. For instance Bioware saying that SW:ToR will have more content then all previous Bioware RPG's combined.

Bioware can do that, most development studios can't. They don't have the manpower or the money or the resources/facilities to house them etc. etc.

So they have to create content that they can create semi-quickly, because if not the player will burn through all of their cool awsome better AI stuff and then.... have what to do? 

You don't keep subs that way.

It's not about WoW and emulating them, WoW was smart to see what other games did and make them better and roll it into a friendly package.

Problem is, people try see what WoW did and make it better and roll it into a friendly yet different package, but so far NO ONE has gotten anywhere near the level of polish and quality that WoW has. So people go back to WoW.

You can always try something different, but there is a reason a wheel is round and not square. Sure, a square wheel is different but it just doesn't work as well.

It's funny because a square wheel (EVE Online) has more subscribers than any of the last batch of round wheels (WAR, AoC, TR, Vanguard, etc).

You can't honestly believe that the EQ/WoW approach is the only way to properly do MMOs.

Back when I played original EQ, it was well known in the game that you couldn't solo play every class effectively. That even the classes you could solo, more exp could be gained from grouping. I liked soloing, so I made first a Druid (great soloers in EQ) and then a Necromancer.  I could not make a Warrior and expect to solo it successfully. Was it a dissapointment to me that I could not play any class I wanted 100% solo? Sure, but it added to varity and depth to the game.

The problem I have with mmo makers and a large chunk of players is the fact that they dont want ANY interdependance with any other players. They not only don't want to group (forget raiding) but they want all classes to be able to do what any other class can do. 

Instant travel is another example. Once upon a time fast travel was tied to fellow players. You had a friend, or you asked a certian class that had the skill to buff or teleport you, or you made that class yourself. It was just 1 of 100 elements that made it feel like a community. Now 9 out of 10 games you go to a stone, use an item or NPC. MMOs today may as well be single player for all the interaction you need to have.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by johnspartan

So they have to create content that they can create semi-quickly, because if not the player will burn through all of their cool awsome better AI stuff and then.... have what to do? 
You don't keep subs that way.

YOu keep subs by creating at least one or two aspects of the game entertaining enough that people keep playing. You encourage social networks because people will generally keep subbing to play with friends even if the game is not as fun as it once was. You also keep people interested long enough that you can put out an expansion so people can burn through that content while you develop the next expansion always dangling a carrot of providing something new in your game so people will be less likely to abandon all the effort and time they've put in prior.

It's not about WoW and emulating them, WoW was smart to see what other games did and make them better and roll it into a friendly package.

Wow capitalized on a time when MMO"s were still not widely popular. They capitalized on a known IP and a solid company name built on single player games. WOW utilized low polygon counts so people with average machines could run the game with less issues. WoW made a game that was more solo friendly to get into than most games with the learning curve. None of those there state that wow did anything better with what games were doing. Quests are still quests of kiling a mob, delivering an item, speaking to another NPC.  PvP was horribly imbalanced when wow was released. Graphics are a personal taste. Leveling was the same, xp is the same, and item distribution in my opinion is worse. I will concede however that they made crafting painless.

Problem is, people try see what WoW did and make it better and roll it into a friendly yet different package, but so far NO ONE has gotten anywhere near the level of polish and quality that WoW has. So people go back to WoW.

Polish and quality is not the same as design. Because there are more issues, bugs, and poorcustomer service does not make the design or concept flawed, only the implementation.

You can always try something different, but there is a reason a wheel is round and not square. Sure, a square wheel is different but it just doesn't work as well.

It's funny because a square wheel (EVE Online) has more subscribers than any of the last batch of round wheels (WAR, AoC, TR, Vanguard, etc).

You can't honestly believe that the EQ/WoW approach is the only way to properly do MMOs.

I do think he and many others do. I also think that wheels used to be made out of stone, then progressed to wood, then to rubber and other composites. Just because the wheel is round, doesn't mean you need to stick to the same old components to make it.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by johnspartan

Originally posted by heartless

Well, the watering down is a problem for sure. A problem which, in my opinion, does not stem from the fact that it's being catered to everyone but simply because that's the easy way out for developers.

I mean, what's the easiest way to make group content? Give the mobs tons of HPs and make them hit much harder. Solo content? Do the opposite! Instead of making the content challenging by creating better AI, adding puzzle elements or implementing the use of the environment into game play, the developers choose the easy way out.

It's just as possible to create challenging, interesting and equally rewarding content for both group and solo players.

I guess some of this could be attributed to outdated engines of current MMOs. However, I think that the biggest problem is that developers and executives do not want to try something new. They see WoW's success and they want a chunk of those 11 million subscribers. So they assume that by emulating WoW as closely as possible they will get people to switch. Which hasn't worked so far.

 

When you are trying to create a game that never has an ending, i.e. a MMO, you have to create a LOT of content. For instance Bioware saying that SW:ToR will have more content then all previous Bioware RPG's combined.

Bioware can do that, most development studios can't. They don't have the manpower or the money or the resources/facilities to house them etc. etc.

So they have to create content that they can create semi-quickly, because if not the player will burn through all of their cool awsome better AI stuff and then.... have what to do? 

You don't keep subs that way.

It's not about WoW and emulating them, WoW was smart to see what other games did and make them better and roll it into a friendly package.

Problem is, people try see what WoW did and make it better and roll it into a friendly yet different package, but so far NO ONE has gotten anywhere near the level of polish and quality that WoW has. So people go back to WoW.

You can always try something different, but there is a reason a wheel is round and not square. Sure, a square wheel is different but it just doesn't work as well.

It's funny because a square wheel (EVE Online) has more subscribers than any of the last batch of round wheels (WAR, AoC, TR, Vanguard, etc).

You can't honestly believe that the EQ/WoW approach is the only way to properly do MMOs.

Actually I would consider EVE to be more like a sled then a wheel.  A sled will work much better than a wheel in certain environments while a wheel is more generic purpuse.  I would also consider games like WAR, AoC, TR, Vanguard to be 'square wheels'.  They were different enough from WoW but did not have an environment where they were usefull.

I actually believe that a game where soloing, casual grouping and raiding are given equal footing in all aspects of the game is possible.  However, it requires a different mindset among all these groups then the old batth of group-centric games has fostered among the current MMO playerbase.

Originally posted by Torik

Actually I would consider EVE to be more like a sled then a wheel.  A sled will work much better than a wheel in certain environments while a wheel is more generic purpuse.  I would also consider games like WAR, AoC, TR, Vanguard to be 'square wheels'.  They were different enough from WoW but did not have an environment where they were usefull.

I actually believe that a game where soloing, casual grouping and raiding are given equal footing in all aspects of the game is possible.  However, it requires a different mindset among all these groups then the old batth of group-centric games has fostered among the current MMO playerbase.

At it's core WAR was identical to wow. Loot /gear dependence and PvE is endgame content, despite being advertised as completely the opposite.

Everything around that core was poorly designed and implemented.  ( They used old worn out rubber on the tires)

These analogies make no difference. The fact is that EVE is probably as different from the usual EQ/WoW type as an MMO can get. It also has more subscribers than most EQ/WoW type MMOs.

That alone shows that people are tired of playing these repackaged versions of WoW that developers keep feeding us.

Originally posted by heartless

These analogies make no difference. The fact is that EVE is probably as different from the usual EQ/WoW type as an MMO can get. It also has more subscribers than most EQ/WoW type MMOs.

That alone shows that people are tired of playing these repackaged versions of WoW that developers keep feeding us.

As does this brilliant ad campaign  www.youtube.com/watch

Flawless victory.  :D

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by heartless

These analogies make no difference. The fact is that EVE is probably as different from the usual EQ/WoW type as an MMO can get. It also has more subscribers than most EQ/WoW type MMOs.

That alone shows that people are tired of playing these repackaged versions of WoW that developers keep feeding us.

 

As does this brilliant ad campaign  www.youtube.com/watch

Flawless victory.  :D

 I hate elves so much... I loved Overlord II for making elves look like flamboyant treehuggers.